This chapter develops an ethical framework for strategic sustainability communication in political speech and applies this framework to an analysis of an Australian parliamentary debate on climate change. In the Australian Parliament, political speakers have been criticised for an impractical and unethical debate surrounding climate legislation. Notwithstanding the multiple political and discursive factors influencing the debate, I contend that in the mechanics of rhetorical argumentation lie potential solutions. Following a brief discussion on sustainability communication and rhetorical argumentation, this chapter draws from Aristotle’s instruction on the “deliberative species” of rhetoric to develop a rhetorical framework that promotes practical reasoning for civic decision-making within contemporary pluralistic debate. Key to my Aristotelian approach are three principles to maintain practical arguments: First, the argumentation should be deliberative and the premises of arguments should be derived from relevant civic topics; Second, the argumentation should follow a practical line of reasoning using logical deductions; Finally, emotional appeals are tied to practical arguments. In my qualitative, exploratory, conceptual study, I apply this framework as a novel approach to the analysis of rhetorical argumentation in political speech. I make a case study of two Australian Parliamentary speeches from legislative debate in 2021 in which the speakers take opposing views on the utility of climate change legislation. I determine to what extent their rhetorical argumentation contributes to practical debate based on the three criteria of my Aristotelian framework. I finish by posing this analytical framework as a model for further research in sustainability communication and beyond.